Electrophysiological Evidence for Domain-General Processes in Task-Switching

Capizzi, Mariagrazia; Ambrosini, Ettore; Arbula, Sandra; Mazzonetto, Ilaria; Vallesi, Antonino

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00124

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both behavioral and EEG data were collapsed across spatial and verbal tasks after having confirmed comparable behavioral and EEG effects (ps > .05) as in our previous study (see Capizzi et al, 2016).…”

Section: Procedures and Taskmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…EEG was recorded using BrainAmp amplifiers (BrainProducts, Munich, Germany) from 64 Ag/AgCl electrodes that were mounted on an elastic cap (EASYCAP GmbH, Germany) according to the extended 10-20 system. Electrooculography (EOG) activity was measured through an electrode placed 2 Participants were the same as in Capizzi et al (2016). However, unlike our previous study where data from six participants were discarded, here, we used all the participants' data according to the different analysis pipeline followed in the present study (see the Data Analysis section for further details).…”

Section: Eeg Recordingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, since switch and mixing costs have been rarely compared and, when done, the focus was mainly on proactive control, it is still unsettled whether switch and mixing costs in reactive control tasks are tied to similar or distinct frequency bands as those found for proactive control. To improve our understanding of switch and mixing costs during reactive control, we conducted time-frequency analysis of a previous EEG data set from our laboratory (Capizzi, Ambrosini, Arbula, Mazzonetto, & Vallesi, 2016). The key design feature of that study was the simultaneous cue-target presentation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Brain oscillatory activity associated with switch and mixing costs during reactive control

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although this ancient Latin quote was not coined with reference to task-switching, a common finding in the cognitive control literature is that switching from one task to another incurs a significant "switch cost" as compared to repeating the same task. Yet, there is also a "mixing cost" when contrasting performance on the all-repeat trials from the single-task blocks and the repeat trials from the mixed blocks (Monsell, 2003; Rubin & Meiran, 2005). The switch cost is generally taken as an index of a phasic task-set reconfiguration process, which operates on a trial-by-trial basis to flexibly switch between different tasks and which itself includes multiple sub-processes such as retrieval of current rules and appropriate stimulus-response mappings from memory, resolution of carryover interference from the previous trial, suppression of the no longer relevant task-set and activation of the new relevant one (Monsell, 2003). Conversely, the mixing cost is thought to reflect higher memory demands

show abstract

Section: Procedures and Taskmentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Eeg Recordingmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Brain oscillatory activity associated with switch and mixing costs during reactive control

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the monitoring blocks were intermixed (in a counterbalanced order) with other task-switching blocks, the results of which have been reported elsewhere (Capizzi et al, 2016). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Testing the domain-general nature of monitoring in the spatial and verbal cognitive domains

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it is well-established that monitoring the environment for the occurrence of relevant events represents a key executive function, it is still unclear whether such a function is mediated by domain-general or domain-specific mechanisms. We investigated this issue by combining event-related potentials (ERPs) with a behavioral paradigm in which monitoring processes (non-monitoring vs. monitoring) and cognitive domains (spatial vs. verbal) were orthogonally manipulated in the same group of participants. They had to categorize 3-dimensional visually presented words on the basis of either spatial or verbal rules. In monitoring blocks, they additionally had to check whether the word displayed a specific spatial configuration or whether it contained a certain consonant. The behavioral results showed slower responses for both spatial and verbal monitoring trials compared to non-monitoring trials. The ERP results revealed that monitoring did not interact with domain, thus suggesting the involvement of common underlying mechanisms. Specifically, monitoring acted on low-level perceptual processes (as expressed by an enhanced visual N1 wave and a sustained posterior negativity for monitoring trials) and on higher-level cognitive processes (involving larger positive modulations by monitoring trials over frontal and parietal scalp regions). The source reconstruction analysis of the ERP data confirmed that monitoring was associated with increased activity in visual areas and in right prefrontal and parietal regions (i.e., superior and inferior frontal gyri and posterior parietal cortex), which previous studies have linked to spatial and temporal monitoring. Our findings extend this research by supporting the domain-general nature of monitoring in the spatial and verbal domains.

show abstract

“…Artifact-free data were then low-pass filtered at 30 Hz and baselinecorrected per trial using a pre-stimulus baseline window of 300 ms, following previous studies that employed per-trial baseline correction in the alternating-runs paradigm (e.g., Capizzi et al, 2016;Hung et al, 2016;Kamijo and Takeda, 2010;Sikora et al, 2016a;Swainson et al, 2003;Fig. 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

P3 event-related brain potential reflects allocation and use of central processing capacity in language production

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allocation and use of central processing capacity have been associated with the P3 event-related brain potential amplitude in a large variety of non-linguistic tasks. However, little is known about the P3 in spoken language production. Moreover, the few studies that are available report opposing P3 effects when task complexity is manipulated. We investigated allocation and use of central processing capacity in a spoken phrase production task: Participants switched every second trial between describing pictures using noun phrases with one adjective (size only; simple condition, e.g., "the big desk") or two adjectives (size and color; complex condition, e.g., "the big red desk"). Capacity allocation was manipulated by complexity, and capacity use by switching. Response time (RT) was longer for complex than for simple trials. Moreover, complexity and switching interacted: RTs were longer on switch than on repeat trials for simple phrases but shorter on switch than on repeat trials for complex phrases. P3 amplitude increased with complexity. Moreover, complexity and switching interacted: The complexity effect was larger on the switch trials than on the repeat trials. These results provide evidence that the allocation and use of central processing capacity in language production are differentially reflected in the P3 amplitude.

show abstract

Electrophysiological Evidence for Domain-General Processes in Task-Switching

Cited by 21 publications

References 71 publications

Brain oscillatory activity associated with switch and mixing costs during reactive control

Brain oscillatory activity associated with switch and mixing costs during reactive control

Testing the domain-general nature of monitoring in the spatial and verbal cognitive domains

P3 event-related brain potential reflects allocation and use of central processing capacity in language production

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About